Freedom and Sin in John Chrysostom and Nikolai Berdyaev: A Study on the Problematics of Eastern Orthodox Therapeutics

Abstract

This study focuses on John Chrysostom (c. 349-407) and Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948), who are respectively chosen as representatives of the Greek patristic centre and the Russian Religious Renaissance margins of Eastern Orthodoxy. In its pages, the writings of these thinkers are analysed in order to respond to a tendency among some Orthodox Church leaders, particularly in Orthodox-majority southeastern European countries, to use therapeutic sin language negatively to call ‘spiritually sick’ persons (including, but not limited to, LGBTQ+ persons) whose beliefs and lives diverge from the Orthodox Church’s teachings. It is argued that this tendency is theologically problematic, as it hinders Eastern Orthodoxy’s ability to communicate its Christian message in a loving and missionally effective manner, and the following research question is raised: Is there a way in which Orthodox Church leaders can employ therapeutic sin language with love and missional effectiveness in their communication with Orthodox and non-Orthodox persons alike? Seeking to offer a positive answer to this question, the present work scrutinises Chrysostom’s and Berdyaev’s thought worlds and brings their ideas into an original theological dialogue. Through investigating Chrysostom’s understanding of freedom and sin, the former of which has not been substantially examined before, and by presenting Berdyaev’s view of intuition, freedom, and sin while challenging previous readings of his thought, it provides a systematic account of Chrysostom’s and Berdyaev’s intellectual architectures and uncovers the place of therapeutic sin language in them. Then, attention is given to the differences and similarities between Chrysostom’s and Berdyaev’s understandings of freedom and sin, and, drawing constructively on the latter, an answer to the above research question is formulated. According to this, Orthodox Church leaders can use therapeutic sin language in a loving and missionally effective manner when addressing both Orthodox and non-Orthodox persons because the flexibility in Chrysostom’s and Berdyaev’s thinking, combined with the distinct therapeutic models of sin that are derived from their theologies, enables them to adjust their therapeutic sin language to best communicate in different contexts.</p